Huh? No way! The last Trek movie was better than Star Trek V. I don't think they can make a movie that bad again. I thought it was better then the previous 2. Of course, the best ones were 2,1,and 3 in that order.

But yes, Star Trek is dead. No longer can Paramount get away with just making a new series and draw in the hardcore Trek crowd. They're not watching anymore. They either need to come up with something really fresh or stop the series altogether.

The story mentioned the low rating for the new TV series and the decay of the franchise and such. I should have copied and pasted the article... Hmm... maybe I can still find it... Let the hunt begin! (sorry I've been playing through Bounty Hunter! Jango rocks!).

I've been trained well it seems. The hunt is successful, here's the article and I found in less than 10 minutes, piece of ryshcate! (a Corellian Cake made for celebrations and special occasions, like weddings or birthdays (See X-wing Wedge's Gamble for reference)):
____________________________________________

"Star Trek" Universe in "Decay"?
by Joal Ryan
Jul 1, 2003, 6:15 PM PT

Is the "once-proud" Star Trek franchise stagnant and in decay?
Yes, according to a leading game maker.
Activision filed suit Monday against Trek's federation bosses at Viacom, accusing the media giant of running the Enterprise into the ground and zapping fan interest in its videogame tie-ins.
Viacom, in turn, says it's the gamer that's trying to trod on Trek for the sole purpose of renegotiating a $20 million licensing deal.
Activision's breach-of-contract lawsuit, excerpted Tuesday in a release from the Santa Monica software manufacturer, is unusually harsh in its assessment of the state of Star Trek and even contains a spoiler.
To whit: According to Activision, Viacom, which owns Paramount Pictures, has "no current plans for further Star Trek films."
Spoiler proviso: Studio sources say that while a new big-screener isn't in the works that doesn't mean one won't be--Paramount, they insist, isn't phasing out Trek.
Paramount has released 10 Trek features, dating back to 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The most recent was 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis, the fourth to star the cast from Star Trek: The Next Generation and the first to fail to surpass the $50 million mark at the U.S. box office.
To Activision, Nemesis' negligible performance wasn't an isolated incident but a trend.
"Through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once-proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay," Activision said in a statement.
The gamer is yelling "Tilt!" over Viacom's perceived failure to provide "a continuing pipeline of movie and television production" as reputedly agreed to under terms of a 10-year licensing agreement inked in 1998.
Activision complains Paramount released just one movie, Nemesis, and introduced just one new prime-timer, Enterprise, during the deal's first five years, while "allow[ing]" two Trek series to expire.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ended a seven-season run in 1999. Star Trek: Voyager concluded its seven-year mission in 2001. Enterprise blasted off on UPN in September 2001. The show is widely considered to be a few photons low on ratings power. It is ranked 101st for the TV year to date, averaging 2.1 million viewers.
But, Viacom would argue, the show's still on. The old shows are still rerun on cable. Nemesis DVDs are still rented at Blockbuster.
"Activision's assertions and claims in its filing are manifestly unfounded as one can learn by simply turning on a television set or walking into a book, game or video store," the company's consumer products division said in a statement Tuesday.
If Activision sees Trek as Scotty sees the Enterprise, as a ship one bolt away from disaster, then Viacom sees Trek as Captain Kirk sees himself, as a leader among men and aliens. Star Trek is, in Viacom's words, "perhaps the greatest intellectual property franchise to ever emerge from television."
Per Viacom, Activision is "trying to use the courts" to redo its videogame deal, which, so far, has produced 10 titles, including the just-released, Star Trek: Elite Force II.
Per Activision, it doesn't want to redo the deal--it wants to break it. In fact, it says, it has. For good measure, it wants Viacom to pay damages.
The Activision-Viacom feud resembles the ongoing Marvel Enterprises-Sony Pictures dispute, in which Marvel has accused the studio of mismarketing Spider-Man, and Sony has accused Marvel of trying to renegotiate its licensing deal.
Activision, meanwhile, isn't the universe's only aggrieved Trekker.
Steve Kutzler, editor of the exhaustive Star Trek news site TrekWeb.com, says the lawsuit will validate a not-unpopular opinion.
"There's definitely a vibe in terms of fandom that Star Trek

This sucks. Trek is awesome. For me, it died after Next Generation because the characters just weren't there anymore. The original series, despite it's 60's cheeyness, had some of the most original and creative writing of any Sci Fi or Tv series ever. The character chemistry is still unparalleled. I love Trek and Wars equally, and it's pretty dissapointing to see it going down the drain. They need to lay low on it for a while. Take a few years off, then come back and revive it. People rip on the Trek movies for being bad, but look at Phantom Menace! Sorry, but without Maul or lightsabers that movie would have been crappy. I think a lot of people miss the greatness of Trek as well. It's all about history and character. Not science fiction. That's why I like even Star Trek 5. The opening scene where Spock, Kirk, and Bones sing Row Your Boat by the campfire is so classic. Take cue from Roddenberry, and due Trek justice you bastards!

Due Trek justice? lol I think Trek is getting justice as the enterprise goes down in flames. Personally I actually have no beef with Trek anymore. Hell I even have watched some watch I'd say 80% from all the series only because I wish to know "the enemy" and just see how bad they can drive the series to rock bottom as they have.

If you wish to rip on Phantom Menace go ahead. Hell I have beef with certain elements too. Jake Lyod was a total miscast and wasn't a natural for the part, it just felt and sounded so wrong with his dialouge and his phrasing of certain thing "yipee!". Ugh... Jar Jar should have just shut up at least 50% more and the movie would have rocked. The only other minor thing was I didn't like the colors of the Naboo Starfighters.

But alas you don't seem to see the whole hologram... You've judge the movie on it's own without even considering the significance as it leads into Episode 2. Further more, as Episode 3 ties into the classic trilogy I think well begin the true genius behind Lucas's vision. I have no doubts there and Lucas knows how to correct mistakes. AOTC was a vast improvement compared to TPM and I know he's gonna have so much more for us to snack on come Episode 3. I'd personally like to see Z-95s, prototype TIEs along with the next generation of stormtroopers etc. Trek's got NOTHING on SW. The Force can never die.

For one thing, it is almost impossible to compare Trek and SW. They are so different. The only similarities are the fact that they take place in space and have aliens. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed TPM and liked AOTC even more, but Lucas has gone way down on the character, and way up with the CG and lightsaber fights. Of course you can judge each film individually, because they take place years apart, unlike something like Lord of the Rings which is one continuous 9 hour long movie. Everyone has their favorite Star Wars film because some are better than others. I know Episode 3 will be pretty damn cool, but even so, Star Wars has lost some of the the magic it had with the original trilogy. Even the most die hard fans know that. Don't bash on Trek. Star Trek is about people. Star Wars is now about lightsaber fights.

Trek is about people that maybe "true" from a certain point of view, but LAME people... Uninteresting bits a pieces of wanna be "human" aspects of what human nature "should" be. How can you say Star Wars isn't about people? All throught Episode 1 and 2 we see the journey Anakin is on. The love and hate, the rage and sorrow, duty and feelings, if anything it's more pure the anything Trek has to offer that tries to cloud emotions and feelings in a sea of rules like the prime directive and wanna be ridged structure for "society" and how people "should" be like.

It's so not even close to the raw and intensity that makes SW work so well and make it's ideas all emcompassing for the masses in all aspects of society. There's not always a diplomatic method and sometimes the crap just hits the fan and 60 minutes of wanna be drama isn't enough to solve all scenarios and especially two hours for the "exciting season finale". Trek is fakeness to the max and that's I think is so much lesser. That's my take on it. I could keep going but I get the hint that may end up "hostile". lol But if you wanna go a few more rounds of healthy civilized debate, I don't mind.

One more thing however, lightsaber combat is an art form driven by years of training and beliefs each form of combat (I-VII) is a symbol of belief in Jedi ideals. Obi Wan in Episode I was a Form IV specialist which involves more acrobatic flips, attacks, and turns and wide arching swings (also Yoda's perfered form). We see in Episode II that he has adopted Form III for lightsaber combat which is highly defensive and the Form he sticks with and masters by the time of Episode IV (thus he can hold off Vader but not over come his attacker. Also Qui Gon's perfered style during Episode I). Anakin is becoming a Form V specialist with is the most aggressive form, which makes sense for Anakin philosophy and feeling.

So if you want to say it's all about lightsaber combat that's fine but take some notes from the form and style which is very noticable and very spiritual. I don't think anyone can real know the deep thought that has been placed into the SW movies in every aspect of the design and style. So before people start to judge a book or a fighting style by the cover maybe looking deeper in to the writing or idealism may help.

Nothing wrong with good ol' debatin'! I understand everything you're saying about Star Wars. I love lightsaber lore and combat as much as the next guy, and it's awesome to watch, but it's all ripped from ancient Feudal Japan anyway. Star Wars has always been more about story and plot, rather than character. Star Trek is more about moments with the characters you get to know and love. Star Wars would never have any scene like the "row, your boat scene" from Star Trek 5 because it's too busy getting to the next action sequence or plot point. And try to refrain from using words like "lame" to describe Trek characters. Doesn't look very intelligent. Spock is the all time best Sci Fi character anyway. There is no character that compares in the new trilogy. The new trilogy, and even the old I think, were not about character development. WHen you watch Trek, you feel like you're hanging out on the Enterprise with your old friends, where in Star Wars, you don't get to know people as intimately. They are almost too different to compare anyway. I mean, one started as a TV show. I love the raw, action fantasy of SW, but Trek is definitely much more touching, original, and developed than Wars. As great as SW is, you take out the lightsabers, and there goes a lot of the appeal.

If I want to say LAME I'll say "LAME" because it gets the point across and it's quite condescending, pompous, and presumptuous of you to tell me how and what to say concerning what is "intelligent" or not. If you knew those things I mentioned about lightsaber combat then why say it's only about lightsaber "fights", which it is not, but it's also about feelings and emotion as well and the distinction is clear. There are no character(s) in Trek that I would want to know or err... love... (Dax maybe an exception cos she's hot, chill, and actually interesting, over 7 life times she better be...) So clearly your point of view would never be shared by everyone especially most of all here in a Star Wars club. In fact I would be inclined to see it as an attack on Star Wars that I will more than happily defend, but as earlier mentioned, it's just a debate.

And NO they wouldn't have "a row your boat" scene in Star Wars because that song doesn't exist in Star Wars. And if your telling me Anakin trying to "surf" on that Shaak in the meadow scene isn't a scene that attempts to inject some humor while at the same time trying to have some romantic fun then maybe we're not watching the same movie. The reason we think it's cheesy is because we're not use to seeing it in something that's as high caliber as Star Wars. The thing is Lucas was doing the impossible and trying to get a romance going when the galaxy was on the brink of war and all these other subplots concerning individual characters, Obi Wan's Investigation and the whole contrasting with his apprentice, Anakin's emotions, Padme's commitment to duty, Yoda's outlook for the present and future of the Jedi Order, Palpatine's very well done manipulations, etc. (hmmm... sounds like individual human aspect of character development to me.). Hell even Jar Jar has feelings and tries to consider what was the best action of take from his own limited knowledge to regardless of being clumsy. Can't say the same for Spock I'm afraid who's species choose to "have no emotions", right, that's just so human.

More than half the deleted scenes on the DVD would have had built Padme's and Anakin's relationship further but they had to be sacrificed to get back to the flow of plot at the brink of the Clones Wars otherwise the movie would have been 3 hours long (not that we would have minded but highly deviates from the standard 2hours 20min max standard). However, the reason we don't think such things are cheesy in Star Trek is because the whole Trek series is cheesy. Perhaps in it's heyday it was good enough because it was interesting and different for looking at a wannabe utopian Earth etc., but it's stagnated and it's even tried to rip from Star Wars by trying to make a prequel and they don't even have the guts to call it Star Trek anymore with just Enterprise. Beside without ILM, the Trek movies would have nothing but the same old wanna be Photoshop effects like that of the original series.

Furthermore, humpback whales saving the earth? Constantly going back in time and parallel dimension whenever it's convenient to save whatever? Space battles that have two ships just sitting there with all this advance technology you'd think they'd move (and yes I realize the argument concerning that Star Wars starfighters battles are inaccurate but are way more visually simulating and realistic from a certain point of view.). Give me a break... In real life thing don't work out that way so that all things are solved within an hour and you get a undo or redo button when it's convenient. and if the word "cheesy" falls in to your category of "unintelligent" words like "lame" then so be it, I apologize for even uttering such words to one who has such intelligence that the single uttering would hurts his mind enough to post something about it.

However, also note: indirectly you have insulted my intelligence. Perhaps not by design, and if that's the case it's okay, but I do not recommend a course of action that may bring this debate in to a full-blown hostile debate. It's fine to have and def

Before I type my next rebutal, I want to make it clear that I love Star Wars, and grew up with it like everyone else under the age of 50, but I think the new trilogy focuses way too much on action and CGI rather than good story and dialogue. I never said they would actually sing "Row your Boat" in Star Wars. I'm not an idiot. What I meant was that they would never take a full 5 minutes of screen time just for a casual and humorous interaction between characters that develops no plot at all. If you are a Star Wars fan, you should know this, because it's all about plot and journey with SW, and Star Trek isn't. It's about people in space. I think the writers of the new Trek films need to realize this themselves. And as for that scene where ANakin rides the big cow like creature in AOTC? That can't even count as a moment of comedic relief because it lasts for 2 seconds on screen, and everyone I saw it in the theater with laughed at it, not with it. And since we aren't using intelligent wording here, I'm going to say that it was retarded! As far as you not wanting to care for any Trek characters, I guess that's a matter of personal preference or else you are so die hard SW loyal, that you won't allow yourself to like them. There's no reason to think they are lame, because there is so much great drama in it. Don't bash on the whales man! I thought that was a really thoughtful idea that brought forth issues that were concurrent to today's problems. Besides, Trek has covered 300 times more terrain on the writing front with something like 800 episodes and 12 movies, and countless books. Star Wars has 6 movies and some books. One more thing that pisses me off about the new trilogy. CGI Yoda! I know it was essential for the fight at the end of AOTC, but Yoda's character was defined by the use of the puppet in the original trilogy. When he went CG, he lost a lot of his charm, which sucks. Didn't feel as real anymore. Before you respond, remember we are debating Sci FI, so don't get too flustered.

Getting flustered is a subjective matter that I doubt anyone can tell over a message board. If I wish to "bash" Trek I will and can, just as you have "bashed" Star Wars, it's a matter of opinion. You may disagree and that's fine, but your view points on what is "retarded" is also highly subjective but you can think what you wish, I don't care. What I do personally care about are digs at me, which could have been by accident or by design. IF that was the case you have no right to tell me what to say or how to say it. However, perhaps our problems are linguistic, perhaps a defense of myself concerning the words I chose to use was rash.

However, you want to push you view points on Trek to Star Wars Fans here like a Mormon's pushing Christ to atheist. We'll consider what you have to say, but in general we will reject your analysis because it's subjective to what we consider and know is true. In general you can't tell us that Trek is awesome and Lucas has screwed up "our Star Wars story", because it's HIS story, his way and whether you agree with it or not, so quit your whining and go complain to him or the local Trek contingent.

However to defend Lucas (like I even have to but I will anyway because it's about personal pride too) is a visionary. His use of special effect, sound, and even music paved the way to what movies are today. We aren't use to entire CGI terrains and cities like Coruscant, Kamino, Geonosis, etc. Or entirely CGI characters like Jar Jar and now Yoda, but that's what sci fi is! It doesn't really exist but for someone to take a vision of that magnitude and put it to film is first of all amazing, secondly near impossible to have it flow consistently without some sacrifices, and thirdly takes someone who understands the true dynamic of human nature and social construction and beliefs.

Your right Star Wars would not waste time to analyze something about one person for 5 minutes and attempt humor. But they don't need to because it's inherent in us already otherwise we can really say we are human. Lucas knows that and his way of getting to us on the human level IS through story and plot, and feelings and emotions in his characters.

Not 2 hours of wannabe spoken out loud psychoanalysis of once again lame characters/aliens (gee they all look human with bad make up and things stuck to their heads too me...) and techno babble that's just so obvious of what has to be done to save the Enterprise from destruction for the millionth time. The bottom line is that you've rejected the new Star Wars due to some minor errors in the new trilogy and comparing it to the original in which there is NO comparison! It is the same story in the long run but concerning different events and people in a different time periods in the same galaxy that's not even finished yet.

However, I can see how it is easy to just accept the few facts that we think we know and then reject the whole story as a whole because we want to compare the special effects of old with the new. Yes the new prequel is flashiness in its special effects and "lightsaber fighting" but it has to be, it's the prime of the Jedi. Coruscant would have been near insane impossibility to create by models alone, and those other planets (Kamino and Geonosis) would have been technical monstrosity to create sets for as well. Not to mention the many diverse looking aliens, creatures, and species of ALL shape, sizes, and forms that would have looked utterly crap as puppets. Lucas's vision, his story, his saga, and his way. For the most part I agree with his decision and actions but even some parts I don't, and Lucas has made changes accordingly to suit what he wants and the fans want.

Oh and personally I think having Yoda work his lightsaber skills was excellent. It shows the apex of Form IV lightsaber combat in all dimensions and totally does not ruin his character. He fought to save lives, as any Jedi will. As a master his defensive Force powers shows the limit of what is it is to counter Sith and the Darkside. It is the balance that is th

Dude, that was an intense rebutal you just posted! It would be cool if someone else joined in on this debate. Anyway, why are you preaching to me about my subjective opinions when your entire post is subjective? I never doubted that Star Wars is Lucas's creation, and he can do what he wants, but a lot of people will agree that, for them, the new trilogy has lost some charm. Ask anybody what their favorite moments are from the new trilogy, and 90% of them will say either The Darth Maul fight or the Yoda fight. All that stands out anymore is the action scenes, which are great of course, but there is a huge lack of memorable moments that the original trilogy is full of. There is also a big lack of stand out characters, although there are exceptions. It seems that the original trilogy is entireable quotable, while with the new, you have to dig for a memorable line. This isn't just my subjective opinion by the way. Almost all people I know, even huge Star Wars fans, feel this way. I'm sure you know some of them. You've written a few things that make it look like I said things I never did. Be careful about that. Like the stuff about CGI? The only thing I mentioned was Yoda. What made him so fun to watch in ESB was that he was a puppet. He seemed real, like you could reach out and touch him. They didn't even come close to it with the CG version, despite the ear wiggle, that wasn't even a big deal. I have a feeling you haven't watched much of the original Trek series or TNG, or you wouldn't call every character on there lame. Too much techno babble? yeah, you obviously haven't watched much of the original. For me, after Roddenberry died, Trek went down hill, so I don't give a crap about Voyager or Ds9. So you think Trek's science and premise is fake? If that's a point you will use in this argument, than why are you even debating? SW is beyond fake! A lot of their technology were ideas ripped from Trek anyway. Warp speed = light speed. And how can you not like Spock? Come on man, give in!!!

"oh come on man, give in" spoken likes a true person who wants to change people, just like the Mormons... lol? Even if you try to convert people here, the people here know it's so flawed especially in a SW forum (a poorly chosen battle feild in the first place but your funeral). If this was religion then I'd say you've already defiled a sacred land and you should be ejected for blasphemy but it's not, in a sense, lol, so it's fine you continue your flawed analysis, it?s actually funny. Not once have I actively tried to change your mind concerning Trek because as I said I don't care about your opinions because I have seen for myself the original Trek series and beyond that because I know what I like and don?t. For you to tell me what I should like and don't is wrong and utter crap since I have actively chosen to see everything as well. If I do actively refute your statements then I've sworn that I?d know enough of an enemy to be able to crush them if necessary like a tin can and will do so here, because now I have good reason to do so and I can use the practice.

I therefore choose to champion Star Wars as my duty as a loyal fan who knows the saga inside and out, in nearly every aspects. You have not defended the statement of Treks techno babble issue but I will happily defend anything you wish to throw at Star Wars concerning lightsaber technology, hyperspace (which is NOT warp, and if you really did know Trek you'd know what I'm talking about already, which has already shown the flaw in your subjective arguments), starfighters, ships, designs, planets, or anything else.

For example let's take your "argument" concerning lightspeed and it was ripped from Trek, which is utter bull. They are two completely different concepts and it obvious your analysis isn't even on par with my own with that statement, so prepare to eat your words. In Trek the have this concept of "warp" which is NOT lightspeed. Warp in Trek terms is actually the ability to alter the space around the vessel to travel past "lightspeed" in order to get to other places. In that sense they "warp" the space around them, after establishing a "warp field" which is further crap. If that's the case the ability to go to "warp" should never interfere with the structural integrity of a ship itself since it's the space around them that's supposedly solely affected. Yet they've already messed up this idea concerning warp in TNG since no ship can go beyond warp 10 for an extended period of time without falling apart. In that sense they've also messed up the entire ability to travel through "space" when in fact space and even objects pass them only and they stay still, which is ludicrous.

Now as for the concept of hyperspace, which a lot of other sci-fi has been ripped from Star Wars (I wonder why? Hmmm because it's a better concept maybe?) such as Babylon 5, and even Gene Rodenberry's own creation "Andromeda" with "slip stream" technology, which is a weirder version of wannabe hyperspace. All ships that are light speed capable in Star Wars are given a specific rating. Han Solo's craft the Millennium Falcon has a rating of .5 pass the Big L (Spacer slang for lightspeed). However, due to the delineation of time from Einstein?s theory of relativity a ship in lightspeed time will slow down while everything else remains constant. Thus "the twins paradox". To counter this, hyperspace is a dimension where outer relative time remains in sync with those in the ship while in hyperspace. Otherwise people on a planet would be long dead even before a ship could return after a Kessel Run or something and only the descendants would be left.

A hyperdrive motivator is used in order to propel a ship into or passed lightspeed at pre-calculated hyperspace jump along hyperspace nav routes that have been mapped over eons during the Old Republic and are normally in putted in to standard ship Navicomputers. Naturally stars, black holes, planets, and other heavenly bodies present a hyperspace gravitation mass shadow that exert on ships and thus hyperdrives have a pr

Oh yes, Spock, I forgot to answer that, to make a long story short: Spock is a dork, an emotionless, green blooded, pointy eared freak. Oh yeah... such a social comentary on human nature there, no emotions. Riiiiiiiiight...

This is fun, huh? Ha! I like how you only debated the last 3 sentences in my last post and turned them into a huge scientific analysis of Trek and Wars technology, and then tried to use that as if it would hurt my argument! That must mean that you agree with me on everything else I said before that. I never came into this wanting to debate anything technical about the Trek and Wars worlds. Unlike you, I have not studied the indepth, yet "fake", technologies that both of these great Sci-Fi fantasies have to offer. As far as that part goes, I bow to you in your nerddom! I came into this wanting to defend the good things Trek has and point out the faults of the new Star Wars trilogy. And boy are there a lot! You want to rip on Spock and the Vulcans, eh? How can you not find them the least bit interesting? Vulcans live soley by the one thing that sets humans apart from the rest of the animals. Logic and intelligence. These are the driving forces that have created what human man knows as "civilization". But people have always hated the bad things brought on by emotion (violence, depression, etc) and have wondered what it would be like to not to live with these attributes. But when we see the Vulcans, we realize how essential it is, as humans, to embrace both intelligence, and primal emotion. Therefore, the Vulcan race is a very neat and simple idea, and there should be no reason to bash on them. You want to rip on characters? Actually, there aren't really any characters I dislike in Star Wars. I even like Jar Jar a little bit. The characters just aren't there in the new trilogy. You look at Obi Wan from "A New Hope" and he you get a sense of depth from the man because you learn of his exciting past, and see the subtle nuances of his character, like his interactions with Chewie and Han. Then you compare him with Qui Gon Jin, who wasn't bad, but all he did was spout wannabe Zen like philosophy the whole time, and act really "wise". He was totally flat in his qualities. Even a Jedi Knight needs some flair, or eccentricities to him to make him interesting. Of course, he was given lots of saber action so he seemed "cool". You want more? Bring it!!! Live Long and Prosper.

I understand the passion with which the 2 parties are debating. However I would like to interject a friendly reminder to please keep this civil. I have read through everything from all parties and I feel it's very close "exploding" in here.

With that said let me add my $0.02.

One of the main things which has been argued more times than I can think of is the difference between the 2 franchises. We must keep in mind that they are very different.

Star Trek is definitely Sci-Fi through and through. It is very technical in what it does and provoking our thought about possibilities of our own future in the vastness of space. Because of this it Sci-Fi at it's core.

Star Wars on the other hand is a bit different. Yes it is technical in the way that they have explain how things can happen. It seems very possible with all the calculations as posted before. Because of that it is very science orientated, very much Sci-Fi. However one of the things which Star Wars has that sets it apart from Star Trek is that it is a work of Fantasy through and through. It is modern day epic mythology. This is one of the things which draws people to it. Much like Lord of the Rings draws many fans and followers. It's the epic battle of good vs. evil, and redemption from ones past which makes this truly greater than any other modern day story to date. Yes ST does have some good against evil, but it's not epic in any way.

Both franchises will continue to be loved by their fans. They are loved for different reasons though, at least in my opinion.

All along I mentioned that they were very different, and practically incomparable. I totally agree with the point you made. Although, I do think that Trek was a lot more fantasy based in it's earlier years than people give credit. There was much more of a magic and adventurous feel to it. As Voyager and DS9 came along, it became pure techno babble. Crap! Don't worry about making this hostile. If Tenken takes the things I'm saying personally, than he needs to chill. I'm here for good ol' debatin'!

Then in the case, we should cut this "debate" short because it's no me here who's not "chill". As I said I could care less for what you have to say but I will defend Star Wars and myself. If your gonna point fingers here that's just childish and I never started anything here by calling everyone "bastards" or being a "nerd". As I said you have no right to judge in that respect.

One more thing, my ability to recall and recite even "fake" logistical information that maybe relevant to a scenario is actually one of my greatest assets. If that makes me a "nerd" then so be it. What I'm saying is that your have no right to judge me or others without rebuttal.